Just noticed you're sending http notifications when a change is "received".That doesn't make any sense to me, why on earth I would want to receive a notification for a change?

For example, this is a deposit address for a user.Someone makes a withdrawl, Bitcoins come from another address inside my wallet, and sends change to that user deposit address.Blockchain sends me a notification that address has received funds, but in fact just received a change from my wallet.

Just noticed you're sending http notifications when a change is "received".That doesn't make any sense to me, why on earth I would want to receive a notification for a change?

For example, this is a deposit address for a user.Someone makes a withdrawl, Bitcoins come from another address inside my wallet, and sends change to that user deposit address.Blockchain sends me a notification that address has received funds, but in fact just received a change from my wallet.

And now my system is a mess.

And because of this I'm 0.14 short... Haven't I noticed this (by accident) and the loss would be huge.

I have a normal wallet in blockchain.info, and I made a couple paper wallets to store the BTC im not planning on using immediatly.

I used the android app to send the funds to the paper wallets, and also scanned the public keys so I could check the balances, etc.

Both the site and the app consider my watch-only addresses as part of my "total" balance, and assumes the other wallets are (and stay being) mine.

This is annoying because both the app and the site show my total balance, not the balance currently in my ready-to-spend wallet. Its hard to figure out my actual spendable balance, and the total balance is displayed in the app wallet, which I may want to keep private (its not a concern ATM, I have far less than 1 btc, but it would be a concern if I had a lot more and didn't want it to be visible)

I noticed that if I "archive" the paper wallets the balance will not take them into consideration (which is what i want), is that the correct way to deal with this? Any other way to mark a wallet as cold-storage?Do archived wallet addresses ever "go away" on their own? (like emails in a spam folder, that are automatically deleted after a few days)

Typically this indicates that a startup just hired a new marketing person. Typically the first thing they do is to irritate everyone at the shop by coming up with a new logo as a means of demonstrating that they do things.

Sorry, I haven't read through the 151 pages of this thread to see if these suggestions have already been made, but I'll add it here.

Two features that would be nice to add to the wallet:

(1) Have a way to filter out dust/spam transactions when viewing your transaction history.(2) Have a way to view your 'spendable' balance. I have many watch only addresses in my wallet, but just a couple that the blockchain wallet has the private key for.

Today I held a presentation about Rublon (automatic two-factor authentication for web apps) at KBBS 2014 (http://kbbs.uz.zgora.pl). One of your users asked us to get in touch with you because he would like to be able to protect his Blockchain.info account with Rublon.

In comparison to traditional two-factor solutions, Rublon does not require you to use your mobile phone. It's based on trusted devices. Once you add your laptop to your trusted devices, all you will have to do is just enter your password in order to log in.

I'm saying that "Relayed By" shouldn't be used. The CoinBase signature should be used instead. The only issue with http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/blocklist.php is that it uses each pool's own website which isn't a great external validation. Having a third party validate the information would be nice. Of course, unscrupulous pools could probably change their CoinBase randomly from time to time in order to hide the fact that they solved a block.

Anyway, Blockchain's use of Relayer causes people to get upset when they report a block is solved by a pool when it isn't. If they used the CoinBase signature, then it wouldn't be as big of an issue.

The quality of posts has dropped to such a low level that all users who are participating in a paid signature campaign are added to my ignore list. If you'd like a copy of the list to improve your browsing experience, you can find it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0 (Updated 2016-1-4)

If they used the CoinBase signature, then it wouldn't be as big of an issue.

But that wouldn't tell us who "relayed" the block?

Also, is the information in the coinbase a cryptographicly secure signature? Or is it just a tag placed there by the mining pool? If it's just a tag, then what keeps others from copying the tag to create a false attribution to the wrong pool?

The quality of posts has dropped to such a low level that all users who are participating in a paid signature campaign are added to my ignore list. If you'd like a copy of the list to improve your browsing experience, you can find it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0 (Updated 2016-1-4)

If they used the CoinBase signature, then it wouldn't be as big of an issue.

But that wouldn't tell us who "relayed" the block?

Also, is the information in the coinbase a cryptographicly secure signature? Or is it just a tag placed there by the mining pool? If it's just a tag, then what keeps others from copying the tag to create a false attribution to the wrong pool?

I don't really care who relayed the block when it comes to determining who mined the block. They are two separate things. I was interested in which pool mined the block. Just because someone relay's the block, doesn't mean that they mined it, hence the current issue with the way BlockChain.info assigns which pool mines a block.

Yes, someone could place a tag in their Coinbase signature when they mine a block and that could create false attribution. I just don't see the incentive to do so other than by a pool operator who's trying to hide the fact that they solved a block. With blocks being solved randomly, it would be pointless to consistency fake the data.